![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I just found an article in the Journal of maritime Archaeology: Coastal societies, exchange and identity along the Channel and southern North Sea shores of Europe, AD 600-1000, by Chrisl Loveluck and Dries Tys.
Is is all talking about how coastal communities do not seem to have valued commodities in the same way as the societies they were nominally part of.
So yes... These are exactly the same themes as my dissertation, only approached in a different way and in a different time/place.
I'm excited! Now I must finish reading it. Hopefully it is not made of poop!
ETAs:
"Ease of access to maritime communications now suggests specifically coastal attitudes to commodities, which developed because of situation on major waterborne thoroughfares and the perceived marginal situation of coastal dwellers, in relation to inland settlement and social hierarchies."
-This also seems to reflect the findings of the article on the Lime street privateers from the 16-17th centuries in London. Badass!
-Oh, *also* Trussle's dissertation on the consumer revolution in Port Royal :D
Is is all talking about how coastal communities do not seem to have valued commodities in the same way as the societies they were nominally part of.
So yes... These are exactly the same themes as my dissertation, only approached in a different way and in a different time/place.
I'm excited! Now I must finish reading it. Hopefully it is not made of poop!
ETAs:
"Ease of access to maritime communications now suggests specifically coastal attitudes to commodities, which developed because of situation on major waterborne thoroughfares and the perceived marginal situation of coastal dwellers, in relation to inland settlement and social hierarchies."
-This also seems to reflect the findings of the article on the Lime street privateers from the 16-17th centuries in London. Badass!
-Oh, *also* Trussle's dissertation on the consumer revolution in Port Royal :D
excited
(no subject)
A---------------------X---------------------B
where A is complete irrelevance, and B is 'you bastard you just stole my thesis!'. You want any new source to be as close to X as possible without going far beyond it: X is the ultimate paper that maximally allows you to build off it to contribute a completely novel perspective on the subject.
But it intersects with another axis, namely quality
C
|
|
|
|
X
|
|
|
|
D
where C is 'utter crap' and D is 'so good I have nothing new to contribute theoretically'. X is the point where the person's analysis, or data, or whatever, are really good, but not so good that you have no new theoretical contribution to make.
The point where X is where the two lines intersect, is the point where the best possible article for your purposes exists. I call it the Chrisomalis point, because I'm an arrogant bastard. :)